actually, i think you need to tax old people to pay for old people.

they have all of the money, right? the root of the problem is that they're sitting on it. so, they're going to need to pay for themselves.

i usually attack the "most vulnerable" line as a bunch of high tory anglican gibberish. but, this idea that seniors in canada today are vulnerable is complete nonsense. it was true of their parents, for the reason that the boomers wouldn't support them. but, now the boomers are sitting on all of the money they wouldn't give their parents, and won't give their kids. this is the 'me' generation, after all.

they're not just not vulnerable, they're astoundingly wealthy.

no. stop. there's no choice. they ruined the economy. they slashed state finances. they've left unemployment and debt. their own savings are not only sufficient to cover their costs, but they're the only source of wealth that there is.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3428212/old-age-security-report-cd-howe/

what?

the senate descends from the house of lords. it's meant to represent the interests of property, as a counterbalance to the house of commons.

this is a bunch of fucking bullshit. and, that's the exact language you should use, as you send your kids to the fucking internet to do some real research.

but, it's not just a bunch of fucking bullshit, it's a scary level of revisionism - the kind of thing we're not just going to look back and laugh at, but the kind of thing we're going to look back and laugh at very uncomfortably.

don't rot your kids' brains with lies. tell them the truth. we have a lower chamber for commoners, and an upper chamber for feudal property owners. the balance of power was initially designed to ensure that the property owners could override the commoners. over time, this fell into disuse - and for good reason, as it is undemocratic. unfortunately, the current government seems to want to return to feudalism. so, it wants to rebrand the house of lords as some kind of guardian council.

i will repeat what i've stated previously: the senate is invalid as a governing body. it can act as a kind of proof-reading institution without any real backlash. but, the day the senate overturns legislation from the house (that has not already been ruled unconstitutional), the social contract is broken and the entire state loses any claim to legitimacy it claims it has.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wise-owls-senate-childrens-book-1.4094066

nobody expected this.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/divide-conquer-richelieus-playbook-the-middle-east-12441

the russians need to communicate, right now.

there appears to be a substantial shift in policy under way in the middle east, with the united states actually supporting the kurds.

if you wanted to end the war against isis, this would be the obvious and rational strategy as they are the only force on the ground that is capable of doing so. the problem is that it escalates the broader conflict. the syrians can't let the kurds carve out a state. and, all of a sudden, the russians and turks end up on the same side, again.

more to the point is that the united states has provided weak or even treacherous "support" for the kurds for the precise reason that it hasn't wanted to end the conflict. it's moves have been calculated to keep the region in chaos. it's the same tactic the romans used to distract their foes: divide and conquer. this shift in strategy may in the end be stupid, but you should expect that to be the norm for the next four years - most of the geopolitical decisions that trump signs off on will be foolish, will continue to demonstrate a deficit of understanding of the underlying chess board and will often act against us strategic interests, perhaps even often in ways that are catastrophic, as this might end up.

turkey is fucking nato, dude. you want to hand the russians the dardanelles? like, what the fuck?

but, the shift - clueless or not - seems to be towards pulling out. that's the story: for the first time in years, the united states is genuinely signalling that it wants out of the middle east, and is making decisions to that end, with the sole caveat that it wants isis removed first, regardless of the other consequences.

if donald trump is going to act like a fool, we should happily make one out of him, to the extent that it remains possible.

what a goof...

"The decision to impose tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber was based on the facts presented, not on political considerations," 

lol.

wilbur ross seems to think he's the wto.

what a clown...

but, again: this is empire.

they picked on us because they didn't think we'd fight back. now, they're claiming it's no fair when we did. so, we have to follow through.

the situation is 100% trump's fault, and he's going to have to eventually eat it, if not in public than at least in practice.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-trudeau-softwood-lumber-dispute-threat-inappropriate-1.4103305

people need to freak out about this. you can't have the fcc coming in and shutting down prominent opposition voices, like this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39828336

the reversal, or compromising, of secularism in france would be a betrayal of the revolution, and ultimately fail in it's path to civil conflict. a policy to replace secularism with multiculturalism will end in it's reversal, in a new republic. and, i stand in solidarity with secularism.

the french fought hard to free themselves from the control of the church. allowing themselves to relapse into islam would be historically irresponsible.

a better question is this: how does the french left generate a revolt by muslims against their religion that is comparable to the revolt of the french against catholicism? how do we get them to renounce islam and become secular? and, this is a necessary task, as they are now the core of the lumpenproletariat.

i think it's relatively common for canadians to identify more strongly with the liberal ideals of the french revolution than the conservative ideals of the american revolution. and, i may speak for the average french citizen when i present the following response to this article: yanqui, go home; yanqui, fuck off!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/05/in-a-secular-country-religion-inserts-an-unpredictable-dynamic-into-decisive-french-vote/

when this first came up, the crown was heavily criticized for filing the wrong charges - observers across the spectrum agreed that the most likely outcome was for the court to strike down the polygamy laws, allowing the community to continue to exist and even throwing the validity of laws against child marriage into question. there was also concern that the real issue was going to be lost, in the process.

the issue in the minds of most people has never been around the question of polygamy. the real issue has always been related to child abuse, and specifically to underage marriages. this concern is not even mentioned in this terse press release.

i don't care about polygamy between consenting adults. i wouldn't exactly argue that it should be legal; i don't think the state should recognize any concept of marriage at all, and property in common should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. so, what would it mean for me to say polygamy should be legal when i don't think marriage should be legal? but, i certainly don't see any purpose in prosecuting consenting adults. 

this community, however, needs to be shut down. and, i can only hope that the correct charges of child abuse, statutory rape and human trafficking are filed very quickly, along with the proper legislation banning underage marriages, should the existing legislation be overturned by proxy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/polygamy-trial-closing-arguments-1.4101033

careful with the reporting in france.

the polling actually says this:

macron ~ 45%
le pen ~ 30%
neither ~ 25%

i'd be surprised if there wasn't a bradley effect at work. and, we all know that low turnout helps le pen, too.

the correct thing or me to say is that i haven't been following the polling closely enough to provide an interesting analysis. but, please read the polls correctly if you're to read them at all.

if the state is convinced that it is worthwhile to increase diversity amongst scientists, what it needs to do is address the issue at an earlier career stage.

scientists care about one thing: science. if you have a good idea, you have a good idea; if you have good research, you have good research. they don't care about anything else.

so, this idea that people are being denied funds because of their ethnicity is spurious, as it is in contradiction to the purposes of scientific inquiry. you will not find any data that upholds this speculation. physicists are not going to reject a good paper because the person is black, or female or subscribes to some kind of superstition (although they may lament the latter). it's a ridiculous idea, and those that promote it are ridiculous people.

on the other hand, what is worrying about the idea of the state enforcing gender quotas is that it presents the possibility that good research will not get funded because somebody is not the right gender or ethnic type. it is the quota system that has the greater potential of enforcing harmful discrimination. those who push back against this are unfamiliar with the culture within scientific communities, and are instead projecting an ideal that they read in a philosophy course - an ideal that does not hold up to any sort of empirical scrutiny and should be forcefully discarded as pseudo-science.

i mean, it will be the ultimate irony if we end up mutilating our research departments due to the pronouncements of foucauldian pseudo-science.

i think the empirical evidence on the topic is pretty clear: girls don't have the same levels of interest in science that boys do. is that actually a problem? well, i don't think that feminism is supposed to be about forcing girls to be boys. what feminism is supposed to be about is breaking down barriers to opportunity. if, in the end, girls make different choices, so be it. you could disagree with this if you want, i guess. personally, i'd argue that a proportional outcome - which is what we have - is a measure of success. but, to argue that the solution to increasing female involvement in the sciences is enforcing quotas is unquestionably wrong. if you think this is a problem, and you think it should be addressed, then it's the culture that needs to be addressed: the system needs to find a way to fight back against all of the corporate and religious messaging that exists and convince girls that they want to be scientists.

they'd have better luck if they were to create a csi or xfiles like show on the cbc. if you think this needs addressing, that's the level it needs to be addressed on.

These findings confirm the presence of an unidentified species of Homo at the CM site during the last interglacial period (MIS 5e; early late Pleistocene), indicating that humans with manual dexterity and the experiential knowledge to use hammerstones and anvils processed mastodon limb bones for marrow extraction and/or raw material for tool production. 

i wanted to make sure that the publication wasn't presenting this the way that the news reports are.

the bering hypothesis is as good as anything in science, and has extremely strong support in dna evidence. indigenous dna is not very diverse, indicating a small founder population very recently. these results do not challenge this hypothesis, which is virtually unassailable.

what they're saying is that there may have been an unrelated species of hominid - not humans, exactly, but close relatives to humans - in north america, after all.

i have no idea how such a hominid would have ended up in north america, or if it would have been more likely to have been related to neanderthalensis (and hence come from the west) or erectus (and hence come from the east). i do not believe that pre-humans are currently believed to have been capable of purposeful seafaring at such extents, but this is all reconstructive. what i might suggest is that if pre-humans could sail from sunda to san diego, you'd might as well go ahead and call them humans.

but, do not be tricked into thinking that these hominids were related to existing indigenous populations. the research suggests no such thing.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html

As of December 2016, there were 1,612 filled positions, among which 30 per cent were women. That fits with the fact between 2000 and 2015, 31 per cent of applicants for the jobs were from women.

so, there's no actual issue, then. this is just political interference.

and, in fact, i believe it is potentially an abuse of power.

s. 15 has a clause for affirmative action; it would be farcical to use it in context, even if the numbers weren't proportionally representative.

these kinds of things move in pendulum shifts. the day that you start demanding that scientists fit a gender or ethnic quota is the day the pendulum has swung too far, and needs to swing back. hopefully, the court sees the issue correctly, and is able to properly apply s. 15 to block this political interference and abuse of power. but, we need some brave lawyers to step up, first.

ed was always usually right.

this is the right way to do this. but, the current government appears to be further right than mulroney's was, and this will be met with scorn, if it is read at all.

i've said for years that we would have been better off if the liberals had negotiated nafta - we would have still had a nafta, no doubt, but a lot of what's wrong with it would be mitigated, at least. that window has clearly passed, as the new liberals are exactly what the party once fought to protect the country from.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-make-human-rights-central-to-a-new-nafta/article34898657/

the debate here misses the point: science is not a bureaucracy, and the goal of being a scientist is not in climbing up ladders and chains of hierarchy. almost nobody in any research field sees diversity for the sake of diversity as a desirable end point: this is a contrived ideal, being pushed down from the outside for purely political purposes.

these arguments about resumes and advancement are fine if you're talking about the private sector, but that is not what science is, and it is not a model that fits the purposes of scientific inquiry.

you'd think we shouldn't have to explain this - that it is self-evident, and there is no reaction besides introverted depression, and cynical statements about how embarrassing the whole thing is. but, this is the kind of policy that happens when you put corporations, via government, in charge of science: it becomes distorted to fit the goals of the private sector. given this government's full-throttled embrace of neo-liberalism, it is not surprising for them to try and enforce their ideological leanings in places that do not make sense. a deeper reflection on the implications of the corporatization of research is perhaps required.

but, we will not get this. we will merely suffer the consequences, and leave it to future generations to salvage what is left.

this is depressing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-pull-research-chair-funding-unless-diversity-issue-addressed-at-universities/article34905004/

i have a better reason to fire stephen colbert: he's not funny.

what i mean is that stephen colbert is not funny. stephen colbert, on the other hand, was hilarious.

but, i certainly hope that he's about to get strong statements of solidarity from speech activists on the alt-right.

right?

*crickets*

this is a legitimate speech issue. they are rare on this continent. but, the left doesn't do this. speech violations always come from the right.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/04/fcc-chair-on-colberts-trump-bash-will-apply-obscenity-law-if-needed.html

churches would find themselves in the worst of predicaments, with their rights and possibly even existences dependent on the capricious mercies of the federal courts. 

just a little soft porn from the national review, here. is it just me, or is it hot in here all of a sudden? wow.

from what i can see, this analysis is correct, but what trump thinks is true is probably more important than what actually is true. so, expect to have to sue them. but, i agree with the national review: there's an upside to this.

i don't think it's possible to separate money from politics using regulatory bodies, and think we instead need to rely on an engaged population to keep the politicians honest. so, the premise of churches openly funding candidates is less frightening to me than it is to others. basically, i would rather they do it in the open than under the table. so, i would rather see legislation that ensures funding transparency. i'd like to see all candidates forced to put all of their donors up on the internet, listed by donation amounts. people that don't want to disclose their politics should not donate - and i will argue that point quite vehemently. participating in politics is not a personal decision, it is a community process. in order to make an informed choice, voters must be able to determine who is paying who. this is not supplemental, not incidental, but at the core of the decision-making process.

you could reasonably argue that voting is the act of choosing preferred donors. if we continue to remain blind to who the donors are, we'll never actualize a meaningful representative democracy. it can never be anything but a charade.

so, i'm not very tied to the johnson amendment - or things like it. and, let's be real: the johnson amendment is small-c conservatism. i'm really just being consistent.

what i'd rather see come out of this is a kind of grand compromise: if religious institutions want a greater say in the political process, they should be allowed to do so under the following conditions:

1) they must publicly disclose the recipients of all of their funding. not to regulators, but to voters.
2) they need to start paying taxes on income (donations) and on property.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447338/trump-religious-liberty-executive-order-failure

my guess is that paul ryan agreed to push something haphazard through under administration pressure, but for the pragmatic purpose of focusing on tax reform.

the house bill is a punt.

and it landed out of bounds.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/house-health-care-bill-senate-doa-238000

fwiw, the sterilization board ran in alberta from the 20s to the early 70s. canada adopted universal health care in the late 60s; we had an american-style free market system during the period the board was in operation. that canard is baseless.

there were similar boards in "progressive" states as well, mostly notably in california.

http://eugenicsandthefirewall.blogspot.ca/2011/02/its-time-right-owned-up-to-albertas.html

the liberal party has begun using the term "snitch line" to describe a proposal by the conservative party to set up a telephone line to report human rights abuses, as though there is nothing wrong with slicing off a little girl's vulva, or it's perfectly acceptable to kill your gay relatives - and it's these snitches, these uncle toms, that need to be pushed back against.

this probably reflects polling done in communities that seek the "freedom" to continue to carry out gross human rights violations in impunity, and resent government interference into what they see as a sacred realm.

these arguments are preposterous. a liberal rights activist needs to be on the sides of the little girls and the queer folk, not on the side of the conservative institutions that want to oppress them. there is not a serious discussion to be had, here. these practices are wrong regardless of context, history or culture - and, if you disagree, you're sitting on the wrong side of the aisle. no self-respecting leftist could possibly exist in this space of cultural conservatism, or refer to rights activists as "snitches". it's beyond orwellian; it lacks the subtlety of orwell.

it's just farcical.

i've been over this before: it's a sad day in canada when the conservative party is the only political entity that is interested in human rights.

andrew jackson was a highly consequential president. it's consequently difficult to know what things would have been like had he lived after he did, because things wouldn't have been the way they actually were.

but, if we ignore this important point, there's nothing particularly egregious about speculating about whether andrew jackson would have been able to prevent the conflict. lincoln himself was not actually opposed to slavery, which is why he didn't abolish it so much as he restricted it to convicts. that caveat in the 13th amendment led to the jim crow laws, marijuana prohibition and every other excuse to put black people in jail.

so, the fact that andrew jackson was an asshole doesn't really address the question. lincoln was an asshole, too.

how about this: get historians on either side of the question and have them debate the topic. that's what you do when somebody makes a claim of this sort...

do i agree? well, trump is probably parroting a right-wing conspiracy about the federal reserve, and it probably went over most people's heads. if that his argument, i don't agree with his argument. but, i don't understand the basis of the blanket condemnation, either.

this space was on the east side of downtown detroit; i usually find myself on the west side, and it's consequently always been a walk away from where i was, and never a rational end point. i decided a few months ago that it would only make sense to make the walk on a saturday, and i haven't been over on one since. so, i planned to end up here eventually, but never did.

...unless this is where i was on the night i woke up in that dude's car, and it may have been. but i was drunk. nothing more exotic than vodka.

in hindsight, i calculated that it was actually equidistant from my endpoint to the magic stick and i may have been better off there on that night had i done any dj research. but, i didn't know that the cops were eying it, either.

i've never had a real issue in detroit. but, it seems like the cops are focusing on the east side of the city. i don't know the precise details, but you have to understand that what the cops do is provide muscle for property. if this area of the city is being targeted, it is because people that own property in the area are demanding it.

i share the goal of a lively late night scene in detroit, and would throw out the following tactical advice: stay away from areas that are in proximity to any kind of property development. it's not a question of whether you're following the law or not; the cops don't care about the law. it's a question of whether you are pissing off property owners or not.

http://thedetroitilove.com/2017/05/01/cultural-imbalance/

no shootings, anyways.

hey, i'm pretty wild. i just have one rule: don't fucking touch me. i'll be fine as long as nobody is violent....

so, i think i may have found my open all night, every night bar in downtown detroit after all, and i've been walking right by it for years. shit, huh? it's close enough to the tunnel that i can even get back to it if i miss the bus by two minutes.

well, i know what to do if i'm out all night on a friday or a saturday. but, i've had to leave early to catch the 1:10 bus on a random tuesday or wednesday. and, it's kind of a piss off, because it would be easier to deal with the situation on a weekday morning than a sunday morning. if i miss the 1:10 bus, i have to wait until 6:30. best case scenario, i could stay at a 2:00 am bar until 2:30, and get back to the tunnel at 3:30. that's three painful hours. more realistically is a four hour wait.

what i've needed is an all night dance club with cheap cover. finally finding this place - which i was sure didn't exist - is a potentially liberating turning point. it gives me back five nights a week...

but, there's a catch: it actually looks like a slightly scary place. it would have to be, though, by definition.

how scary could it really be at 4:00 am on a tuesday, though? gah.

here's a litmus test: can i find a news report of anybody getting shot here?

i refuse to concede the point that i'm being offensive in any way. people just aren't thinking clearly.

nobody thinks we should let in every single refugee everywhere, no matter what, right? there has to be some criteria. if you reject this statement, you're just not thinking clearly. if i propose the criteria of religion, why is that so much more horrible than some other criteria?

there has to be some criteria for rejection, right?

and, listen: i don't want to live in a religious society. i'll reiterate what i've stated repeatedly: if you're a right-wing christian and you want to bring in more religious people, we're pretty diametrically opposed to begin with. i can dream about deporting christians, right? it's the hippies that don't understand what they're doing that piss me off.

see, and here's the thing, with myself, anyways: religion is really the only criteria i'd propose. i don't care what colour people are or what language they speak. i think we need to be careful about bringing in refugees with low education levels, but i'd actually propose that as a proxy for religion: the points system may be a little strict for refugees, but we should be making more of an effort than we are to determine utility. i don't care if they're queer or not, but i'll point out that queer refugees should have a high priority level in religious societies, which is at the crux of my point. it's really only religion - and, any religion - that i think ought to be a stopping point.

and, you're free to disagree with me.

but, this isn't and shouldn't be seen as some taboo. a religion is not a phenotype. it's a choice that reflects a character. and, i don't have a problem telling people that make this choice that i'm deeply uncomfortable with their character, and strongly apprehensive about welcoming them into my community.

in the end, he decided to fight a terminal cancer that essentially nobody beats. he had a giant tumor in his head: no fucking chance to beat it at all.

the doctors made it clear as day.

so, the realist that i am, i suggested that he spend his remaining months doing the things he always wanted. he always wanted to go on a deep sea fishing trip up north, for example.

i was excommunicated, for the reason that i accepted the diagnosis. he was going to beat it, and didn't need the negativity.

three lobotomies and countless painful chemo & radiation treatments later, he died clinically retarded, after being bed-ridden for months.

he did not accept his fate until the last moments, and it's not clear if he understood it or not.

there's a lesson, there.

i don't want to say that i didn't learn anything from him, because i did.

see, he was a very stupid man. and, very stupid men make large numbers of mistakes over the course of their lives.

he worked hard his whole life and gained nothing from it - there is a valuable lesson to be learned, there. namely, don't waste your life working.

he did much of it for his children, who didn't want what he gave them. another valuable lesson: don't have kids.

he married thrice, and was miserable in all three of the relationships. lesson: don't get married.

kids don't learn in a vacuum. in the long run, i was actually probably better off.

it may not be clear, so let me be explicit: i actually don't even have a driver's license.

i don't mean to say that it was suspended or whatever. what i mean to say is that i never learned how to drive.

there was a complex of factors underlying this. a part of it was that my dad was really insistent on it, and i was at the age where i was pushing back against parental control. my dad was neither an educated person nor an intelligent one. he didn't understand why i was spending so much time doing homework, instead of trying to get a driver's license and go after girls. so, a big part of it was a fuck you to his macho attitude and the broader society that he spoke for and represented.

i'll have you know that i never learned how to ice skate, either - which in canada is unusual. it's even more unusual, considering that my father was drafted into the ontario hockey league, which is one of the top junior leagues in the country.

but, a bigger part of it was that i was a strong climate activist as a teenager and felt a strong moral imperative to avoid fossil fuels as much as possible. i never bothered to learn how to drive because i never had any intent of driving.

today, i'm 36 years old, and i've never driven a car, despite ample opportunity to do so.

i've told myself in the past that i'd revisit this if there were ever serious opportunities for electric vehicles, but i've actually changed my mind since then. the environmental impact of the automobile industry is not merely limited to carbon emissions. i think that it would be very hard to find me a vehicle that i would feel comfortable enough using for me to finally learn how to operate it.

thanks, fair.

http://fair.org/home/right-wing-foundation-scary-nuke-maps-drive-narrative-on-north-korea-threat/

the most important part of reciprocal altruism is not the altruism part, but the reciprocal part. what that means is that you should only be altruistic with those that are willing and able to reciprocate. being altruistic with those that will not or cannot reciprocate is the definition of stupidity - it is just a net loss of resources that will in the end harm the individual's ability to reproduce.

mexico has demonstrated time and again that it will not reciprocate. it will not allow it's workers to organize. it will not address it's issues of corruption. it takes, but it does not give back.

attempts at altruism should consequently be withdrawn, as there is no reciprocity in it. rather, outreaches towards co-operation should be exceedingly shrewd, with the attempt to coerce a shift towards a more altruistic mindset from the mexicans.

this is, after all, the root of the problem - the mexicans will not reform their institutions so that they are comparable to the ones in the united states and canada. this was the point of bringing the mexicans in - it was to create a pool of cheap labour to evade laws in canada and the united states. so, it's not like the mexicans are solely at fault, here - mexico is what it is because of american capital. but, if we are to behave in our self-interest, what that means is pushing back against this and tying our co-operation to mexican reform.

we're the ones being played for idiots - and by both of them.

and, it's because that's what we're broadcasting.

Mexican government sources tell CBC News one condition is non-negotiable for Pena Nieto — when Mexico sits down with the United States, Canada must be at the table.

yeah. no shit.

we should reject this ridiculous demand by the mexicans, which is meant to treat our negotiating team like the fools they've up to now behaved as, and instead insist on removing mexico from the discussions and reverting to a bilateral agreement.

canada and mexico not only do not have the same interests, in context, but have interests that are diametrically opposed to each other. our relationships with the united states are the exact opposites of themselves: we export and they import. so, this is not a situation of convergence.

the representative from mexico should not take it upon himself to speak for the interests of other nations, and should be publicly rebuked for doing so.

canada needs to ensure that it remains an independent voice here and is looking out for it's idiosyncrasies, first and foremost. we need to co-operate with mexico because it is in our self-interest to do so, not because it make us feel warm and fuzzy - and we need to assert that self-interest at every opportunity.

nafta was supposed to be a deal between canada and the united states. the mexicans were added at the last minute, at the request of the united states. canada should have never agreed to this in the first place, and should keep it's distance at the current time.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mexico-nafta-strategy-1.4090182

i'll always be a punk at heart.

and, i can relate to what they called "indie rock" in the 80s and most of the 90s. but, the indie rock culture switched over in the late 90s to something i never developed a remote interest in. i mean, it had to. everybody that was any good got bought up by the labels. "indie rock" was supposed to sound like sonic youth, but everybody that sounded like sonic youth had major record deals. so, if indie rock was to remain indie, it had no choice but to change. and, i'm not sitting around holding grudges.

it's just that what it morphed into is fucking boring - by design. i'm a serious musician, i always was. i'm not interested in music as a fashion statement, or the reduction of sound to a talking point. but, that's what "indie rock" turned into, because it had no other outlet for itself as an independent form.

of course, the independent rock sound has changed a lot in the last 20 years. what i'm describing went through it's phase of (limited) relevance and dissipated like everything else. but, the term "indie rock" was let go as a co-opted term and remains this broken idea that i don't want to go anywhere near.

i'm sorry. they're universally shitty musicians: terrible players, terrible songwriters, terrible lyricists. they sell shirts and shoes to shallow idiots, they don't create music as an artform or generate protest or really do anything useful at all. and, the people that listen to it are what you would expect: manufactured consumers for the corporate chain.

everything about the term "indie rock" has deserved nothing more than contempt for decades.

and, i'm not telling you anything i wouldn't have told you at any point over the last twenty years, if you had bothered to ask.

again: i've never claimed to be a fan of "indie rock", and have rather been incredibly critical of it.

ok - i spent the first half of the 90s listening to various offshoots of punk.

but, i spent the second half of the 90s listening almost entirely to techno. and, through the 00s, i never developed the slightest interest in anything labeled "indie rock" at all. i spent the 00s listening to various combinations of classical music, progressive rock, techno, psychedelic music and jazz.

i can continue to disappoint you, if you insist. it's better to get the fucking point: i never was, i never wanted to be, i'm never going to be.

it seems like the jazz - or funk, if they'd prefer - theme is going to carry on into may.

good excuse to spin it, though.

i probably would have gone to see the damned tonight if the weather wasn't so terrible, or if i had april cash leftover. but, i'm not a big enough fan to fit it into the existing schedule, and i expect there to be other things happening this month that i'll prioritize over it.

they're 60. you know? how do you be the damned when you're 60? i don't mean to be ageist for the sake of ageism, but there's reasonable cut-offs to what they do, and there's a good argument that it ended quite a while ago.

i'm only familiar with their earliest material, which i suspect they'll only skim over, anyways. but, this band is in some ways actually ground zero for my musical tastes, in terms of influences. some people will look back towards the clash, or the sex pistols, but the band that was most influential on the bands that influenced me was this one.

i think i can say that i wish i was there, back in the day. but, tonight isn't going to be what i'd want it to be.

i hope people have fun, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1G1y7_r8bE

after having my blood pressure taken...

this is what making america great again meant all along, right?

fuck.

i want to see a revival of roseanne about as much as i want to see a tom arnold standup routine.

what the fuck is wrong with people?

i think that the bigger threat with north korea is that the debris from a failed launch may land somewhere and accidentally kill people. maybe the right angle is to try and convince them to stop pretending they have any serious capability, and go back to the drawing board?

it's hard to say who this guy speaks for - he was a representative of the current opposition party, but in a faction that seems to be more closely aligned with the current ruling party. i mean that: it's hard to say. the old pc wing seems to actually have enormous clout with justin trudeau.

if he speaks for himself, so be it. but if he speaks for more than himself, it is a positive sign that the government realizes what donald trump is as an entity.

i think that we have to accept that there was a deep miscalculation. but that just means that we have to adjust.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/a-reality-check-on-nafta-for-donald-trump/article34849854/

it's really just a standard definition of empire, right?

it's easy to say that trump sounds crazy, but there's just as much of an argument that it's a return to sanity. the post-war order was always meant to be designed for the benefits of american exports. so, europe was designed as a dumping ground for american goods. canada was basically a state, anyways, so it made sense to integrate it.

there was this discussion going around after the election about which historical american personality trump most resembled. there was a claim of jefferson, which was met with ridicule. i suggested he was more like the king of england.

and, this is a system that is more like something the british would have come up with, because they were an empire, and they told people they were an empire, and they had a sense of reverence for their (usually) empress.

it's just that the united states has historically gone to great lengths to deny that it is an empire, due to it's historical attraction to democracy - something the current administration has no real interest in.

for all of the valid criticisms of the united states, they created a world order (it is not from nothing, but still largely theirs) that is unlike anything the world has ever seen. it failed because they destroyed it, which is what created the situation of empire we're in today. but, it worked for a little while, at least.

it sounds crazy because we're holding to these ideals that may end up as a blip in history. the blame is not the point. the normal organization of powerful states is into empires.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/04/28/leaked-draft-order-shows-trump-blamed-nafta-for-massive-wealth-transfer-lost-jobs-illegal-immigration.html

fwiw, it's well understood that a lower dollar creates jobs in ontario. and, it just happened again.

if a confederacy is fundamentally a decision to use the same currency, it's hard to have a stable country when the east and west are in this zero-sum game, where one has to lose for the other to benefit.

we're told that a strong oil industry is good for the country. but, ontarians that are not yet convinced need to wake up to the reality of it: our economy moves opposite to the price of oil. it always has. and, there's no reason to think it will change any time soon.

it may very well have been a last minute addition, with the intent to leave expansion to an election issue.

at the provincial level in ontario, we have more of a traditional left-right axis. and, because ontario is what it is, you can expect that most people in the traditional center swing (which includes a lot of low income workers) will support universal pharmacare - if the liberals present it, rather than the ndp. so, the liberals just need to match the ndp to dominate them.

i live on disability, and even if i was merely on welfare i'd still have better drug coverage than a large percentage of wage workers. report after report has called this out for years as irrational and drawn all kinds of conclusions, including presenting it as a disincentive to employment. but, nobody wants to take away drug coverage from people on assistance. 

it's a good start, anyways.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3410017/ontario-budget-2017-families-get-free-prescriptions-drugs-for-children-more-aid-for-students/

this is the reality of "liberalizing markets" in agriculture.

the farmers need to clue-in: the governments of the world work for the agri-business companies of the world. their systems are not safe in government hands. they should organize outside of government.

it makes all kinds of sense - you just need to realize that government today is operated by lobbyists.

https://www.pressprogress.ca/one_chart_shows_why_the_liberal_uturn_on_the_canadian_wheat_board_makes_no_sense

this is an infringement on free speech.

....and this principal should be reprimanded and fired.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-education-13-reasons-why-netflix-1.4089238

if trudeau wants a way out of this supply management fiasco - and don't fool yourself, he is not ideologically aligned with those that would uphold it - he may want to think about privatizing it, rather than abolishing it. and, he may find more support for this on the left than he thinks.

if you think the liberals are going to stand up for supply management, let's remember what happened with the wheat board:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/ndp-leader-challenges-liberals-wheat-board-qp-1.3451181

but, don't misunderstand me when i talk about privatizing it. what the conservatives did with the wheat board - sell it to the fucking saudis - is just about the worst thing that could be done to dairy. what i'm talking about is spinning it off from government into an independent body.

see, i'd rather get the government out of it, too. but, the key point that people are missing is that the supply management system is not intrinsically tied to government. if the farmers want to maintain the system, they can always organize the system on their own. this would create a cartel, but it is a situation where a cartel makes sense and a cartel should be supported. i mean, if the farmers choose a cartel, how can the state prevent it from forming?

an independently run cartel would probably be more efficient, and those efficiencies would no doubt be passed on to the consumer.

i don't want to pretend that i have the background required to organize this. i just want to get the idea across that farmers don't need the government to manage the supply for them. if they believe in the system, they can take control of it and manage the supply on their own. and, that is where my ideological leanings actually lie.

my understanding is that this operation has an extremely high success rate. the government of alberta has a lot of skeletons in it's closet regarding it's motives around public health, and it should revist this policy.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3410342/calgary-family-to-pay-600k-for-little-girls-liver-transplant-after-canadas-health-system-says-no/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/three-amigos-nafta-1.3653929

something else to note on the doctor's visit, today...

my blood pressure was taken, as is normal for a physical. 118/79 is a little high for me, but pretty healthy. pulse: 62. a little weak on first glance, maybe. but, it is consistent with the amount of walking that i do (and my low cholesterol). that is, i appear to have the cardio-vascular health of a professional athlete. and, the truth is that i probably walk enough to more or less mimic the exercise routine of one. that was another two and a half hours of walking, today.
 
also, bmi: 19.9.

...so, it's just more evidence that i am ridiculously healthy. i'm uber-mensch. really.

but, i noticed when she was taking my blood pressure using the cuffs that it felt a little tight. i've noticed this before and asked them to be very gentle when they're doing it, because it tends to flat out hurt. i'm uber-mensch, but i'm also kind of delicate.

a flower?

anyways.

as per usual, it kind of hurt. it even left a bruise, which is now entirely healed, because uber-mensch. so, i made a mental note to make sure i'm more firm on the need to be gentle, next time.

when i got into the doctor's office, i looked down at my hand and noticed the inside of my thumb was swollen and throbbing and blue, as though cutting off the flow of blood had created some kind of backlog, which pooled the blood, making it physically looked like a giant, swollen bruise.

i asked him if he thought it was from the blood pressure cuffs being too tight (which seems to be the obvious cause), and he said it kind of made sense but he'd never seen it before, and it's kind of unbelievable that i could be that delicate, given that i'm so healthy.

maybe it's raynaud's disease, he said, which looks something like this:

he also suggested lupus, and proposed some bloodwork.

...but, i didn't see the need to come up with any other cause than the blood pressure cuffs and stuck with this story, however unlikely it may have been. it was mostly back to normal when i left, and is totally fine, now.

for, me this was actually one of those situations where you dread something happening for years and are kind of torn between being sure it will eventually happen and certain it never will....and then when it finally happens in front of you, you're kind of half excited and half mortified, and not really sure what to do.

at least i was in the doctor's office, right?

i need to be very strict about ensuring they are extra gentle, next time.

my gp has wpath.

score.

still need to find a surgeon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw7UeOxTGuM

i've been over this a few times previously, but i'll say it again: it's not that i arbitrarily think i'm more intelligent than you because i'm good at swiping picnic baskets or something.

the reality is that i consistently do absurdly well on intelligence tests. like, they had to tell me i was smart. it's not something i figured out through observation - it was tested, and the results were repeatedly demonstrable.

and, in fact, it's a curse. you don't get places in life by constantly existing on the outside, looking in. worse, you have difficulty understanding people.

consider my last government job process- and this was the last one i did, before i gave up on it. they had me write the gct2 and i end up in at least the 95th percentile on it - i say that because it's the best data i could find, but i did way, way better than the 95th percentile. it was probably more like 99th, but i can't show that. the gct2 is a basic iq test.

but, i walked into the interview, and two things happened. the first is that i scared them, because they'd never seen a score like that. one of the interviewers was convinced it was a typo - to the point where he didn't even take me seriously. how does a person respond to a situation where their interviewer thinks their iq scores are so high that they must be a typo, and then refuses to take them seriously? the second thing that happened is that i generated a sense of skepticism: "i don't think she's that smart".

well, i'm not convinced i'm that smart, either. but those fucking test scores seem to suggest i actually am. sorry.

they had me write a "situational awareness test" - and i failed it. this is workplace behaviour. i've failed it repeatedly. and, i'm fully convinced that there is a very strong connection between the fact that i get mensa-level iq test scores and can't pass a behavioural test. these are the same phenomena!

i'm actually pretty humble about it. you don't see me waving this around at people. i want to talk about issues as they are, not wave my iq scores in your face and demand you listen to me.

but, the reality is what it is. and, trust me: i have a higher iq than you do.

their database is fucked...

i dunno. maybe the gp knows somebody in windsor.

google isn't helping.

but, the database is throwing back stuff from the uk, from oregon....and somebody in oregon is offering therapy over the phone.

that's it: that's what i need. i have google voice. it's free. one of them has to accept this...

actually, the form is weird and inconsistent - i searched for "ontario" and only got two hits in toronto, but when i search for "ON" i get hits in hamilton and ottawa and guelph and in unclear places, too. i may have more option than i thought. need to look, more.

there's two qualified people in detroit, as well.

...so, i wonder if i could get them to fund consultations in detroit. well, i have access to detroit - i don't have access to toronto. the only way i can get to toronto and back is to hitch, and i'd probably have to spend the night. i'm getting too old for that...

it would probably even be cheaper for me to pay the doctor out of pocket in detroit than take the bus to toronto. how many times do i need to see a doctor to get them to sign off on this?

will the ministry even accept an american doctor?

hrmmn.

i think i should ask the ministry about whether the rec is appropriate or not, first. if i can find an email for them...

i saw the urologist for the follow-up today, and he admitted that he would be unwilling to do the surgery. his reasons were not well-founded; i think i was right about religion as the cause for refusal. but, i don't think that he is the only surgeon in the city.

so, i went and printed off the forms to take to my gp tomorrow. if i can get the forms filled out and the funding approved, i can worry about a surgeon afterwards.

the procedure is covered, and i just need to get two doctors to sign off. but, there's a twist: one of them needs to be trained in accordance with the "world professional association for transgender health" standards of care. that can't be that hard, though, right? this was supposed to liberalize access...

in fact, this is a lengthy training course. two years. it's not free, either. according to the wpath site, there are a total of two doctors in ontario that have these requirements, both in toronto.

so, before they liberalized access, i had to go to a special clinic in toronto. after they liberalized access, i have to go to specialized doctors in toronto. some liberalization.

i've sent out some emails explaining that this is fundamentally harm reduction to reduce the strain on my liver. i don't know what the reaction is going to be.

yet, it seems like i still have no access, here.

i don't see any reason why a doctor needs to have this training to recommend surgery. in the end, it's my liver that suffers - and the system that eventually pays to treat the cirrhosis, because it wouldn't give me the freedom to control my own transition.

the united states is a unique case, because it's a hegemon with no close competitors.

i mean, you're going to have a hard time getting a fiscal conservative streak out of me anyways, because it's not there. but, i'm going to rather propose a question: should the united states abolish taxes altogether?

"but who would pay for roads and schools and..."

they'd just print it. and, in fact, if you remove the arbitrary limits enforced by the budget process, they could build far more roads and far better schools.

it's just the reality on the ground: there's no really good reason that the united states government has to tax it's citizens, or pretend that it's restricted in spending by what it can raise in tax revenues. the whole premise is just bullshit. they can do whatever they want.

that's not true in a country like canada.

but, if i was living in the united states, i wouldn't be getting upset about the debt, i'd be arguing that there's no reason to pretend the situation is zero sum.

listen: i'm no fan of nafta. i'd like to see the isds thrown out, specifically. and, canada has huge natural resources, some of which should not be for sale at all. we'd be better off falling back to the fta and rebuilding.

we'd be better off. they wouldn't.

so, it was the tactic that pissed me off. they were offering us a benefit in the form of a threat. great - let's take advantage of it.

...except that the whole fucking world knew he was bluffing.

so, i'll ruefully respect the president's decision to not pull out of nafta for right now.

(*snickers*)

nobody in the white house cares about facts, guys.

if you want a fact based debate, you'll have to take it to a higher arbiter - and you should. but, you don't sway people like trump with facts. unfortunately, you just irritate them.

trump creates his own reality, where what is true is determined by what is useful to him and how loudly it's yelled.

it would be nice if there was some effluvient force permeating some ether that can work out fact from fiction and uphold the most honourable position, then reward whomever holds it with earthly riches. but, there isn't.

there is only a man in an office in a system that does not care what the facts are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/04/26/trump-trudeau-readout-call_n_16261762.html

also, to clarify any confusion - dawkins correctly self-identifies as a liberal and always has (the doc is technically a rebuttal of the right's co-option of his theory), although i might suggest that he's actually in a bit of a hurry.

i can't find this on youtube.

but, canadian trade negotiators should sit down for an hour and watch it. it's math, but you don't need any background at all to get it...

...because it's dawkins. richard dawkins uses evolutionary game theory to extrapolate upon kropotkin and argue for co-operation over competition - but it's the caveats that you have to account for that are important and that special attention should be drawn to.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/nice-guys-finish-first/

you cannot co-operate with donald trump.

it's like trying to befriend a jackal.

you have to understand the trumpian logic. it's not irrational - it's just the logic of barbarism, and we have to adjust to it.

1) mexico pushed back.
2) canada sought co-operation.
3) therefore, canada is an easier target than mexico is.
4) so, trump should ignore mexico and attack canada.

QED.

you just have to be a barbarian to actually think like that.

...and, yes, it was predictable. that's why i pleaded with them to stand up, early. but, nobody ever listens. story of my fucking life.

the mexicans did this right. we did this wrong. and, if we push back, trump will go invade the falklands, or something.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/25/1625069/-Mexico-May-Call-Trump-s-Bluff-On-NAFTA-Renegotiation

do it.

call his bluff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0JqANzRTo

“Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korean problem? We will see what happens!” - donald trump

the question of whether his accusation is true or not does not seem to matter much, apparently. the value of an accusation lies in it's ability to extract a rent from the accused.

could the president be denied standing in court?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/donald-trump-canada-tariffs

and, let the rest of the world take note - this is how america treats it's friends and allies.

donald trump is a bully. and, like all bullies, he seeks out easy targets. canada is the easiest target he can find.

it's not more complicated than that.

i understand that the trudeau government's instincts are to play buddy-buddy, point to the fact that we're allies under norad and nato and hope there's a rational human being in there somewhere. this is what all canadians really want. but, for at least the next four years, this is the wrong approach.

when a bully targets you because you're easy meat, you have no choice but to stand up for yourself.

they should call his bluff and make a fool out of him, and do it as internationally as possible. humiliate him on the world stage. teach him a lesson.

that's how you deal with bullies.

i've been clear about my views on this.

1) trump is going to face domestic opposition to renegotiation. the congress will not give him what he wants.
2) therefore, he's bluffing.
3) i never liked nafta much, anyways. plus, we have the fta to fall back on.
4) let's call him on his bluff by offering to pull out of nafta. we don't have a congress that can block us. we can do this in 90 days. we can give him what he wants, if he wants it. but, of course, it's going to cost him.
5) oh, wait. he likes nafta after all?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-canada-trade-options-analysis-idUSKBN17R2TL

most recent poll in ontario:

none of the above - 45%
patrick brown (conservative) - 23%
andrea horwath (ndp) - 22%
kathleen wynne (liberal) - 9%

don't think this isn't in play.

it's in play...

...but the numbers have to move, soon. and, if they don't, we need to get off the sinking ship.

i guess the parties have been reading the polls.

this is a good idea. it's not expensive; it actually saves money.

the provincial liberals want it done nationally, but this is one of the things that trudeau has walked away from. but, listen: if this election ends up as a fight between the ndp and the liberals over who can be more populist, we all win in the long run.

....just so long as we don't split the vote, which is going to have to be the factor that actually motivates me in lining up behind one or the other, in the end. wynne has a huge hole to climb out of, and if she doesn't make some progress soon, we're all going to have to cut the line to keep the tories out - and i'm not going to pretend this isn't so.

(my riding is not in play)

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/04/24/ndp-liberal-battle-for-hearts-and-votes-of-progressives-cohn.html

did trump just tell trudeau to "just watch"?

i mean, i suppose he could have had no idea what that implies, but those are some words, up here.

they were talking about this before.

apparently, studies done in the past suggest that the ubi doesn't provide a disincentive towards working. i'd guess this is probably due to social coercion.

i would personally not be subject to such coercion. but, i'm unemployable, anyways - and i think that's the more key point. it's going to be a hard sell to certain groups, but if you want to do this experiment, you have to separate out the noise. i mean, call me a loser if you want. or call me an artist with an unmarketable product. that's not so important, in context; what's more important is that nobody is going to hire me any time soon, anyways, so the ubi isn't keeping me out of the work force.

the point is that you have to scratch people like me off the list. let's hope they actually do it, so i'm not skewing the results. for me, the whole thing really reduces to not needing to go through the hassle of getting my odsp renewed again - and also to a bit of a boost in income. how much?

to ease the pain on the calvinists, which are the real opposition here (even when they don't realize they're calvinists...), i want to draw attention to the numbers they're floating around. i'm on the ontario disability support, which is $1128/month - and i fully acknowledge that this feels like it's generous in the part of the province i live in (although, the caveat is that i moved across the province to allow for it). i have plenty of spending money, as those that follow me can see clearly. that works out to $13,536/year. this is before tax credits, but i'm going to assume that they will remain (because nobody has suggested otherwise). i wouldn't push back on swapping the trillium out for a ubi, though.

the article puts the number of $16,989 down, which is $1415.75/month. so, i would get a boost in benefits of $287.75/month - substantial, to say the least. that's a 26% boost, and i'm not even paying union dues. if i was moving from welfare to the ubi it would be more like a 215% boost in income. and, if i renewed my disability, i may be potentially eligible for another $500/month, making the total increase close to 70%.

but, calvinists should calm down.

at $16,989/year, that would be equivalent to about $8.17/hour, if the person worked 40 hours a week. the minimum wage is about $11.50, and living wage advocates in toronto are pushing for something closer to $20. so, there remain plenty of incentives to work, depending on where you live. in toronto or ottawa, this would merely make the desperately poor a little less desperate. here in windsor, it may be harder to make that argument, but the economy is terrible, anyways. if i stay on disability and this goes through, i could conceivably buy property here with $23,000/year. that's less than i made at microsoft, but pretty close to what i made working tech support for hp - in ottawa, in 2006. it's almost minimum wage, now.

so, the numbers seem to be crunched for toronto and that may be some insular thinking. this is unsustainable if you don't adjust for living costs, locally. if you try and find some middle point, i'll get twice what i need and somebody in a wheelchair in toronto will get half what she needs. it's a big province, with big disparities. and, this is arguably at the root of the cause in the first place - they aren't doing this, and it's what they need to do.

but, it's good to see some work moving in this direction.

https://news.ontario.ca/mcss/en/2017/04/ontarios-basic-income-pilot.html

"Canada is supposed to be fair for everybody." - justin trudeau

no, don't misunderstand - i'm not being snide. it's almost precocious, in a way - in a sort of childlike naivete. but, i'm not pushing back - this is what you want to hear from a dauphin growing into his role. you want to almost be proud of him, or something.

he's right. canada is supposed to be fair for everybody. and, we should applaud the prime minister for upholding the social contract and passing legislation that makes it a little bit more fair, when he can.

i talk a lot shit, don't i? do i know what i'm talking about?

i'm putting this aside for my own records.

...but i have an honours degree in mathematics, with a surplus of credits at the fourth/fifth year that would be enough for a masters degree, if i were to pay for it. this is why i focused on a second degree in computer science rather than a master's degree in math - i already had one, i just never bought it. it didn't get me anywhere, and wasn't going to get me anywhere i wanted.

i stopped the computer science degree a credit short for the simple reason that i didn't want to do it anymore. i did not formally switch into law, but i completed about two years worth of law credits before i abandoned this as well. i could get a minor in either subject if i wanted it.

i spent a year in physics, as well, and you can see that i had an interest in it.

i have no meaningful formal education in history, anthropology, music or political science. this is dabbling and outside reading.

so, when i start talking about thermodynamics or statistics or whatever else, i'm not just repeating things i learned at wiki. i went to school for an absurd amount of time, and took a very technical workload. it's actually the "softer" subjects that i'm not trained in.

i promote skepticism. but, you can usually take me seriously when i get technical, and i will always caveat when i'm being unconventional.

all courses taken at carleton university in ottawa, canada.

mathematics/statistics

*MATH 1002 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis I (full credit)
*MATH 1102 - Algebra I (full credit)
  MATH 1805 - Discrete Structures
*MATH 2000 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis II (full credit)
*MATH 2100 - Algebra II (full credit)
*MATH 2454 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*STAT   2655 - Introduction to Probability with Applications
*STAT   2559 - Basics of Statistical Modeling
*MATH 3001 - Real Analysis
*MATH 3002 - Calculus of Differential Forms and Geometry
*MATH 3008 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*MATH 3057 - Functions of a Complex Variable
*MATH 3106 - Introduction to Group Theory
*MATH 3158 - Rings and Fields
*MATH 3256 - Plane Projective Geometry
*STAT   3505 - Linear Regression and Design of Experiments 
  MATH 3705 - Mathematical Methods I
  MATH 3801 - Linear Programming
  MATH 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I  
  MATH 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*MATH 3855 - Discrete Structures and Applications
*MATH 4002 - Fourier Analysis
*MATH 4207 - Foundations of Geometry
*MATH 4700 - Partial Differential Equations
*MATH 4802 - Introduction to Mathematical Logic
*MATH 4803 - Computable Functions
*MATH 4805 - Theory of Automata
*MATH 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
*MATH 4807 - Game Theory
*MATH 4808 - Graph Theory and Algorithms
*MATH 4809 - Mathematical Cryptography
*MATH 4822 - Wavelets and Digital Signal Processing
*MATH 4905 - Honours Project
*MATH 4907 - Galois Theory

* - enrollment limited to honours students.

total math credits: 19 credits, or 38 courses.
result: official b. math. unofficial m. math.

computer science

*COMP 1402 - Introduction to Systems Programming
*COMP 1405 - Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming
*COMP 1406 - Design and Implementation of Computer Applications
  COMP 1805 - Discrete Structures
  COMP 2003 - Computer Organization
*COMP 2402 - Abstract Data Types and Algorithms
*COMP 2404 - Programming in C++
  COMP 2805 - Introduction to Theory of Computation
  COMP 3000 - Operating Systems
  COMP 3005 - Database Management Systems
  COMP 3007 - Programming Paradigms
  COMP 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
*COMP 3805 - Discrete Structures and Applications 
  COMP 3806 - Numerical Analysis
 *COMP 4803 - Computable Functions
 *COMP 4805 - Theory of Automata
 *COMP 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra

* - enrollment limited to honours students.

total computer science credits:  8.5 credits, or 17 courses.
result: incomplete degree (completed 8 of 9 required credits, and 19 of 20 overall).

law

LAWS 1000 - Introduction to Legal Studies (full credit)
LAWS 2201 - Persons and Property  (Private Law I)
LAWS 2202 - Obligations (Tort law)  (Private Law II)
LAWS 2301 - Criminal Justice System  (Criminal Law I)
LAWS 2302 - Criminal Law (Criminal Law II)
LAWS 2501 - Law, State & Constitution (Public Law I)
LAWS 2502 - Law, State & Citizen (Public Law II)
LAWS 3500 - Constitutional Law
LAWS 3504 - Law and Aboriginal Peoples

total credits: 5 credits, or 10 courses.
result: undeclared minor.

physics

PHYS 1001 - Foundations of Physics I
PHYS 1002 - Foundations of Physics II
PHYS 2604 - Modern Physics
PHYS 3807 - Mathematical Physics I    
PHYS 3808 - Mathematical Physics II
PHYS 4203 - Physical Applications of Fourier Analysis

total credits: 3 credits, or 6 courses.
result: this is a credit short of a minor.

breadth

BIOL 1003 - Introductory Biology I
BIOL 1004 - Introductory Biology II

PSYC 1001 - Introduction to Psychology I 
PSYC 1002 - Introduction to Psychology II  

ENGL 2107 - Science Fiction
ENGL 2906 - Culture and Society

MUSI 3603 - Computer Music Techniques
MUSI 3604 - Computer Music Projects

CLCV 1002 - Survey of Greek Civilization                  
HIST 3902 - The Late Roman Empire (Byzantine History, 395-1453)

ECON 1000 - Introduction to Economics (full credit)
ECON 4004 - Operations Research I

total credits: 6.5 credits, or 13 courses.
result: this is breadth outside of the four areas i focused on, remember: 1 credit bio, 1 credit psych, 1 credit english, 1 credit music, 1 credit history and 1.5 credits in economics (ECON 4004 was also listed as MATH 3801).

OAC courses

SPHOA - Physics
MCAOA - Calculus
ENGOA - English
DCCOA - Computer Science
MFNOA - Finite Mathematics
MAGOA - Algebra & Geometry
SBIOA - Biology
SCHOA - Chemistry

total credits: 8 credits, or 8 courses.
result: these are pre-university courses that were previously offered at the ontario high school level. i believe i was in the last year for OAC.

what i want to say about this is that it's as clear as day that canadians want an ndp government.

it's really depressing what happened last time around with mulcair. but, the electorate remains in the same place that it was in 2015. all the ndp needs to give trudeau a run is somebody willing to stand up and commit.

and, we won't make our votes contingent on immigration, either. it's clear what we want. but we won't vote against our broader interests to get it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-oppose-policies-that-would-align-canada-with-those-of-donald-trump-poll

once again: it is in no way clear what trump is trying to accomplish in north korea.

he surely doesn't think he can bully them into giving up their nuclear weapons. why does he think they have nuclear weapons in the first place?

is he trying to look tough in front of the chinese?

there isn't a clear objective, here.

...and so i'm once again left to conclude that this is a made-for-tv movie.

get some popcorn, i guess.

and, we'll have to hope that the north koreans behave rationally in the face of american absurdity.

who is the rogue state, here?

if there's one thing potheads are, though, and as i've pointed out repeatedly, it's innovative.

“they want to make weed uncool to any sort of new user. i don’t think that’s right … they’re going to prevent innovation.”

hey.

that's a winning argument.

i mean, maybe i should remind you that i was an anti-globalization protestor in the late 90s. remember the battle of seattle? this is where i was politicized.

i've been fighting free trade and globalization for twenty years. it's at the very core of my politics.

and, you think the neo-liberals are any less racist? different types of racism, maybe. not less racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElUA25rgyeg

the whole premise of "this is old, therefore it's good" is just mind-numbing.

generally, people prefer to look for the most up-to-date source, not the oldest one.

out of all of the religions, the indian ones are both the oldest and the most painfully, distressingly idiotic.

it's dipshits all the way down, folks.

Historically, populist movements have thrived in regions of economic distress or among demographic groups that are enduring hardship. This appears to be the case among France’s youth, especially in the deindustrialized northeast. According to a recent Ifop poll, 39 per cent of 18-to-24-year-olds support the FN. Mr. Macron’s centrists attract only 21 per cent of the youth vote, and Mr. Fillon’s conservatives pull in just 9 per cent. Ensuring that young people come out in force is crucial for Ms. Le Pen’s electoral success.

the differences are just exaggerated, here.

- clinton may have worked for bankers, but there was some reason to think she'd push back a little. macron is a banker. full stop. pick your cliche; let's go with foxes and hen houses, although hands in the cookie jar works, too. that makes macron far worse.

- you couldn't take a word trump said seriously. le pen is clearly not the fool that trump is, and she comes from a lineage with a history of standing up for people. her threats are believable.

again: it's lesser evil. they're both terrible. but..

i said during the last election in the states that i agreed with clinton more than i agreed with trump about 53% of the time. that means i agreed with trump over clinton about 47% of the time. so, it was hardly a ringing endorsement, right?

what i'm saying here is that the situation is flipped - because macron is that much worse than clinton, and le pen is that much better than trump, the situation flips over: i end up agreeing with le pen over macron 53% of the time.

not a ringing endorsement. lesser evilism. and with the caveat of understood russian ventriloquists snaking around in the background.

it's more of a brutal rejection of macron. and, what i'm getting at is that my logic might end up replicated fairly widely.

again: i would have rather seen a real leftist candidate win.

but, le pen has the credibility factor that trump never did. i said over and over again that if i could actually believe trump, i'd endorse him. i never did. but, i believe le pen.

....and, at the end of the day, if i have to choose between a quasi-racist working class candidate and a crypto-racist investor class candidate....well, that isn't actually a choice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/marine-le-pen-macron-fillion-french-elections-who-will-win-a7600206.html

if le pen wants to win this, or at least make the vote rigging obvious enough that it cannot be reasonably denied, she needs to make the election a referendum on neo-liberalism and german austerity. that means that she needs to aggressively frame the issue on those terms.

if she frames macron as an out of touch, elitist banker working solely in the interests of the parasitic investor class, she has a chance - because it is true, and because she can credibly claim to protect the welfare state and general interests of the french working class.

if she makes the election about "security" or "terrorism", she will lose. she should avoid this.

and, no jews.

no jews.

she should embrace the very narrative that the establishment wants to use against her, and turn it around on them.

i want to be clear that there isn't a good choice here. but, le pen will probably do less long term damage to the french economy than macron will. this is a lesser evil calculation. if you look into it a little more closely, perhaps you may be surprised to realize you agree with me.

when le pen talks about saving french civilization, she may have a point - because macron is going to sell off the country to the highest bidder, while pushing down crushing austerity from the banks. all of her rhetoric makes far more sense when directed at her immediate opponent, because all of a sudden it's actually true.

how much would disney pay for the eiffel tower, anyways? it's ok - it'll trickle down.

macron is a far greater threat to french civilization than islamic terrorism ever will be.

so, this is more dangerous than you think. i probably wouldn't vote at all, because...i mean, you can vote for the banks or the kremlin. fuck that. the banks are in some way better than the kremlin, right? good luck writing that essay.

the reality is that if the average french voter is to be expected to vote on self-interest, it's not at all clear that macron is the preferable option.

but, jfk was a misogynistic, racist, mentally unstable, right-wing war criminal. he reflects american "liberalism" fairly well - in the sense that american "liberalism" is what they call conservatism everywhere else in the world. but, i expect far better from the french than to look up to an american psychopath from midway into the last century.

the worst part about the jfk assassination is that it prevented him from being tried at the hague.

the left split the vote. melenchon's numbers came up a little at the end, but not enough. it's hard to understand why you'd vote for hamon when you know he's trailing melenchon by over 10%, and you have a legitimate chance at winning an election. but, it's hardly the first time this has happened, either. it's just irrational behaviour.

if the french elite want to make this about the establishment versus the people, which probably isn't even accurate because on aggregate le pen probably doesn't represent the people any more than macron does, they should not be surprised when people react poorly to the messaging. but, that's exactly what you're going to see - every kind of banker is going to line up behind this guy and expect that voters follow their lead.

le pen is a puppet of the kremlin. she can't win. but, the french have clearly lost.

i still haven't seen any actual results. listen: this is a really hard math problem. it's not your average two candidate race. two-three percentage points is a reasonable margin of error for this kind of problem.

you really should not have a lot of faith in the algorithm.

i mean, it could be right, anyways, but you should wait before you move on.

....but, i'm starting to see the angle they're using.

they take a guy and give him every status quo position that there is, but assign him a new party name. and, voila: the status quo is a historic change.

most people are not dumb enough to fall for this and will in the end just not vote. i don't expect that they'll allow le pen to win. so, they're left with lingering resentment and the same basically unstable situation.

five years of macron pushing the same policies that created le pen will just make it that much harder to keep her out of power, the next time.

those are some excellent computer programs in france, if they think they can project a four person race to within 2 percentage points, without even counting paris.

maybe they got it right.

i'd wait a bit still, though.

whether this is true or not, it is the reason that the americans won't/can't provide the rebels with air support.

in a doomsday scenario, the americans would no doubt win. but, they'd have to eat a dozen f-*s and swallow a huge amount of pride in the process.

the rebels were supposed to take out the sam sites from the ground, first, to allow for massive strikes - but they couldn't do it.

as an aside: the day that israel can no longer assert air superiority over the broader levant is the day that the balance of power in the region shifts. this was always the fear, here: that syria is going to emerge from this much more powerful and much more assertive than they were at the start.

they should have let assad step down peacefully when he wanted to, years ago. and, the architects of this failed war in syria should be sent to the hague.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201703171051691543-israeli-plane-downed-over-syria-analysis/

considering that belarus is....

why does belarus exist, anyways? it was basically some despot taking advantage of the collapse of the soviet union, to turn a russian province into a country. it's not a baltic state, even though it was a part of lithuania. you could argue it should be in lithuania, or it should be in poland, or it should be in russia - or even that it should be in ukraine. you could argue it should be split up. but, it's not actually really a thing.

belarus should really not exist.

as it is, it's this kind of client state of the russians. people call putin a dictator, and it's kind of an insult to real dictators; lukashenko is a legit dictator. the guy dresses like fucking hitler. he's like the kim of europe.

...says the guy with the moustache that wears military costumes to work.

anyways.

the russians could solve all their problems if they just annexed belarus. and, i mean, who is going to really push back against this? it's basically a formality.

the reason this would work out so well for them is because of the little enclave of land they have there between lithuania and poland, called the kaliningrad enclave. to clarify the point:

the distance from belarus to kaliningrad can't be more than 50 km. and, they could probably even just buy a corridor of land along the border between lithuania and poland.

there's no reason for all these gymnastics. but, i guess russians like gymnastics, right...

http://www.russia-direct.org/sites/default/files/field/image/Russia-Europe-gas.jpg

so, the free market fundamentalists claim that supply management leads to higher prices, whereas the farmers that support it claim it leads to lower prices. which is it?

neither. sometimes, it inflates the price; sometimes, it leads to lower prices than the market would imply. what it actually produces is stability.

now, let me tell you - as a poor person on a fixed income, that stability is what i actually want. i know what the price of eggs is, so i can budget for it; i never have to worry that a price spike is going to screw me over for the month. that stability is worth far more to me than the opportunity to get a good deal in march - if it means i'll get fucked in may, as i no doubt will.

it's funny who it is that seems to be concerned about the poor on this issue, isn't it? they're not your usual anti-poverty activists. in fact, they're usually apologists for big businesses - like factory farms.

regardless, it's not like dairy prices are the only factor creating poverty - or even a measurable factor, really. i promise you that i'm not losing $300/year over dairy, but i am getting $375/yr back on gst, and pretty much the only taxable items i buy are doritos and dr. pepper. it's crazy to take it out of context, like that.

so, it is true that supply management shifts the subsidies from government to consumer, but it's not like the government doesn't further compensate on top of it. further, is it not more fair to make the people that consume the product subsidize the industry they're supporting? and, we need to subsidize in order to compete.

it's a broader social issue to keep the farmers at work - and, we're winning because we did the math.

the reality is that america needs to stop blaming other people for constantly failing at math.

i have not been watching french media and do not have any insight into what it is broadcasting. but, this macron character strikes me as an obvious pinata. i think you should expect a surprise.

i don't think it's going to be le pen, who is going to just get destroyed in the second round, anyways. i'm skeptical about the links between trump and putin, but i am not at all skeptical about russia's support for right-wing nationalists in europe. le pen is legitimately a russian pawn. but, she's more comparable to a rand paul in the united states (in several ways, actually). remember: my analysis is that trump was the choice of the american deep state, and that it was being broadcast over media in the weeks leading up to the election. while i have not been watching french media, i think it is safe to rule out the idea that le pen is the choice of the french military, in whatever limited capacity it is that they operate outside of nato.

i do not think isis is responsible for these attacks. i think the russians are responsible for these attacks. even if this tactic were to work, i would expect the french to rig the election against her. i know - i just walked into a forest of hypotheticals, here. the point is that i don't think she's the deep state candidate, like trump was, and that creates a very different scenario.

but, like i say - maybe somebody that's been watching tv in france has a different perspective.

in a situation like this, you would expect the republican party candidate to walk into the vacuum, which is what fillon initially did. it's time to switch parties, right? but, apparently, he's been hit by a lot of scandal, and that ceded some space to macron. an easy way out of this is for the pollsters to exaggerate the effects of the scandals, but you also need to look at the sources of those scandals to work this out and i just haven't done that research. without doing this research, but not entirely a priori, fillon actually strikes me as the most likely victor.

melenchon appears to be my preferred candidate, but i haven't looked too closely into this, either. there's an angle on this - it's a potential way to avoid a legitimate russian puppet from winning, without sparking a civil war in reaction to vote suppression - but these kinds of candidates are usually public enemy #1. if melenchon is allowed to get to the second round, you should be extra careful in deciphering his past and future statements, and you may find out you were misled. again: i have not been consuming french media. but, he's either a persona non grata to the ruling class, or he's a fraud - and you'll find out by how well he is allowed to perform.

there's way too many permutations, here, to come up with a reasonable prediction on how this works. but, i'd guess that the actual front runner, here, is fillon.

support for supply management is neither nationalist nor insular. what it is is a competing model. and, it doesn't even need to generalize - you can support supply management in one industry and free trade in another, if the conditions suggest one is better than the other. it is the tendency to ignore rational considerations in favour of a uniform solution that generates the term free market fundamentalist.

the free market fundamentalist wants to propose market solutions for industries where markets are easily demonstrated to produce mass failure - such as health care and dairy farming. these industries require some kind of benevolent management in order to function effectively.

we know this because we've done these experiments.

the ideal solution would not just be for states like wisconsin and new york to adopt supply management, but also for these supply management systems to work together with supply management systems in canada, and in mexico.

what is absolutely foolish is to refuse to manage your supply effectively, then blame other people for your mismanagement. but, what else are we to expect from donald trump?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dairy-farmers-wisconsin-trump-1.4081391